The Dangers of Philosophy, Part 2

There has been a variety of responses to my short post and long quotation from Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the dangers of philosophy. If I may be so bold as to characterize my opponents, I view them as falling into three camps.

First, there is the view well expressed by John who asks whether I'm opposing all intellectual discourse and arguing for a dichotomized view of religious versus secular truth. John suggests that the works of Jonathan Edwards or Augustine might not have been written if Martyn Lloyd-Jones' (and my own) views of the danger of scholarship held sway in their days. John also suggests that several of the philosophers mentioned in my original post have been champions of orthodoxy.

I disagree little with John's overall thrust. However, at several points I would diverge from him. To begin with, Edwards and Augustine may be viewed as philosophers by some but their approach was fundamentally theological. They began with Scripture and argued from there. They did not start with philosophical theory. They did not try to force Scripture through constructs of the human mind.

(And, let me add that it's not just philosophers who do this. The battle for inerrancy has brought us a generation of Biblical scholars who do the same using inerrancy as their superimposed grid. I'm convinced that Roger Nicole, a founder of the inerrancy movement, is able to justify women as pastors and heads of homes because, through constant explanation of difficult Scriptural passages, he has come to view Scripture as his tool rather than his master. This danger exists anywhere we seek to superimpose rational human constructs on the Word.)

John mentions William Craig as an example of orthodox philosophers who hew to Scripture. But John must know of Craig's Molinist arguments for a "middle knowledge" explanation of God's sovereignty. Molinism is, frankly, one of the supreme examples of man seeking to impose logic on Scripture. I'd rather be a full-fledged Arminian than hold to Craig's entirely philosophical theories in this area. Richard Baxter likewise sought a mediating position between Augustinianism/Calvinism and Arminianism/Catholicism--and was equally unconvincing. But at least Baxter argued on the basis of Scripture rather than philosophy.

The irony is, men like Schaeffer, who I trust you respect, John, are pariahs within the world of the Evangelical philosophers. They mock him. If you don't know this, then you haven't spent much time around those who teach at places like Wheaton.

Finally, John, it's occurred to me that perhaps some of those who read my post do not know who Martyn Lloyd-Jones is... Certainly, anti-intellectualism is in one sense a strange accusation to bring against him. I certainly don't agree that anti-intellectualism is a major problem facing the Church today. But I'm no more anti-intellectual than I'm anti-gravity. Both have their necessary places. Neither sits above the Word.

Let me add that I excluded the portion of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' argument where he sought to demonstrate the place of reason in Christian life. I will append that portion of his IFES address to this post when I get to the office.

Then there is a second group who responded to my post by saying that the PhD student of my example simply didn't know logic. I find this group most troubling because, in fact, whether he knew logic or not is not the issue. This man's first principle was that God must act in accord with logic--and the principle can't be argued by throwing logic back at him. Then it just becomes a philosophical cat fight--a fight, I suspect, this young man would win. We don't need to fight logic with logic. We fight human wisdom with the foolishness of God, the Word of God. I fear the classical Christian school movement with its emphasis on logic and love for Watts' little primer has led to a great deal of sophomoric thinking in this area. This was no stupid young man. He knew logic. He was well-respected in his PhD program, a program which itself is held in high regard. He will likely go places in the field of philosophy--but not as a Christian I fear.

Human logic does not constrain God.

Finally, there are those who appear to argue, as the young philosopher argued, that there is no mystery in God. The philosophy student I've mentioned throughout this post passed himself off as an honest Calvinist. He, brave soul that he was, simply took God at His word: He is sovereign; He rules all things; nothing happens that He does not ordain: therefore, He ordains and is the cause of evil. There is no mystery in it, only a logic that squeamish men weasel out of.

And the answer here, is that there IS mystery in these things. Mystery, not of the Agatha Christie mode, but mystery of the deep and hidden things of God. Philosophers are no less subject to God's Word than other men.

Thus, when the Word says,

James 1:13-15 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

all men must respond: God is not the author of evil.

And when the Word says,

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

all men must respond: though I will not completely understand, I will obey.